ivated only by self-interest . Any act, no matter how altruistic it mightseem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (e.g., desirefor reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness). This is a descriptive claimabout human nature. Since the claim is universal--all acts are motivated by selfinterest--it could be proven false by a single counterexample (Weston, rule #11). It will be difficult to find an action that the psychological egoistwill acknowledge as purely altruistic, however. There is almost always somebenefit to ourselves in any action we choose. For example, if I helped my friendout of trouble, I may feel happy afterwards. But is that happiness the motivefor my action or just a result of it? Perhaps the psychological egoist fails todistinguish the beneficial consequences of an action from the self-interestedmotivation. After all, why would it make me happy to see my friend out oftrouble if I didn't already have some prior concern for my friend's bestinterest? Wouldn't that be altruism?Egoism versus altruism The second issue I want to explore is egoism versus altruism. Altruism holds ``each man as his brother's keeper;'' in other words, weare each responsible for the health and well-being of others. Clearly, this is asimple statement of the ``safety-net'' theory from above. This is incompatiblewith individualism, yet many people who are basically individualists upholdaltruism as the standard of morality. What's going on? The problem is wide-spread confusion over the meanings of ``altruism''and ``egoism.'' The first confusion is to confound altruism with kindness, generosity,and helping other people. Altruism demands more than kindness: it demandssacrifice. The billionaire who contributes $50,000 to a scholarship fund is notacting altruistically; altruism goes beyond simple charity. Altruism is thegrocery bagger who contributes $50,000 to the fund, foregoing his own collegeed...
